More on the backward mag
And don’t even get me started on the chicken wing.
David has his doubts about whether the story/pic is even real or not
5 Responses to “More on the backward mag”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
May 7th, 2008 at 11:05 am
I think the chicken wing bothered me more than the backwards magazine. Whoever took that picture couldn’t have created a better vision of clueless if they had been trying.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
I created a video of this, proving it’s not only possible but easy. I swear, everyone is looking for some big conspiracy; it’s idiotic.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Ry, since your comment involves my post and the word “idiotic,” allow me to respond.
You demonstrated a magazine can be inserted backwards.
No argument. Who argued it? Not me.
What did I say?
I said I couldn’t find the story presented in the jpg about the standoff on any new site, so I can’t say for sure it ever happened. And until I could verify a picture circulating on the internet, I was not going to present it as fact.
I said I asked the reporter and got no answer. In my comments I further said I contacted the Marble Falls PD and have received no answer.
Is it your position that basic fact-checking before endorsing something as true is idiotic?
May 7th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
What grounds do you have to suspect it is a fake? If you hear it from the PAO, will you believe him? If you do, does it matter? The next internet troofer will think you’re in on it too, and this whole shitstorm starts over. This has been going on for years (this specific picture, these questions) and regardless of the numbers of emails republished or phone calls recounted, it won’t die.
Again, what grounds do you have to suspect it is fake? Why, if you won’t accept the emails and recounted phone calls with the PD’s PAO, instead wanting direct confirmation yourself, would the PAO even answer your questions? No matter how many times they say “yes, it’s real. yes, she was under stress.” there’s yet another guy who doesn’t buy it and wants another confirmation.
There is no end to the workload for them, and no pay-off. If they put up a webpage, it would be decried as a fake. If the photographer, editor of the paper, PAO, CO, and officer in question all swore affidavits, it would not be enough. You don’t own a part of these people’s lives; they owe you nothing. Yet, you demand of them and, worse, defame them when they don’t answer.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Did I say it was a fake? I said it was unverified, so I couldn’t assume it was factual. That’s all I said. To equate an insistence on evidence with “defamation” is not only an unmerited overreaction, it overlooks the expectation that sources should not be unreasonable things to ask for when looking for the truth of a matter.
Let me reverse your question: What grounds do you have to suspect it’s true? You mention emails and recounted phone calls. I didn’t see any reference to these in Uncle’s posts, and I didn’t see any on your video–all I saw was you inserting a magazine backwards and proclaiming the case closed. Further, no one who brought the picture to my attention told me anything about them–so the fact is, this is the first I have heard of these.
Where are they? Who do they come from? Are they credible? Instead of getting all beligerrrent and throwing out words like “idiotic” and bringing “troofers” into it, that may be the evidence I’m looking for. Why would you assume everybody knows about this just because you do? And why do you have to be so rude about someone asking questions?
You may want to go back to that argument pyramid you posted earlier and see where the techniques you’ve employed here fit into it.